When Does Life Begin?

cicerone imposter wrote:

neo, Nobody has said a fertilized egg is not a human embryo. Your red herring.

Your problem: why do you have a need to define morally what a human baby is? There is no relationship between an embryo and legal status.
An embryo has no brain. Your red herring.

Are you saying we should trust the legislature? That is what RL is trying to do. What if he succeeds? Will you accept the legal status of the fetus, then?

cicerone imposter wrote:

As for the later stages of pregnancy, it's only the woman's business whether she wants to carry the embryo to term. It's none of your business. You're not even the father. Your red herring.

Broken record and you're preaching to the choir here, CI. A woman may do whatever she chooses. But I don't think it is appropriate not to allow her to consider all points of view about the humanity of the fetus and, parenthetically, the medical risks of the procedure.

Whether I have raised red herrings or not should be considered in the light of the topic of this thread.

0 Replies

The definition of human life depends on one's personal interpretation. There is no global definition that fits for all.

Are you talking about the human life of all humans? If so, how do you react to the US invasion of Iraq, and our killing some 80,000 innocent Iraqis? How about the killings in Darfur? How about all the starving humans on this planet? How about the over 13 million children without any parents? How about all those living in third world countries earning less than US$1 per day?

My personal subjective interpretation of human life is that governments and wars kill more humans than is necessary, and the spending on war should be diverted 100 percent to care for them by providing food and shelter. I, personally, cannot do much to make an impact on all the sufferings of humans on this planet. That, to me, is my reality.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm not the one trying to save all the zygotes, and I understand fully that I have no influence on others. That's my reality; life goes on, and I'm not trying to force women to have their babies by calling it "murder" if they decide on abortion. I'm not trying to overturn Roe vs Wade. What the woman decides is none of my business.
None of my business, either. All I am asking is for a morally consistent definition of human life.

morals are subjective and are not measureable like ethics are. If you want a morally consistant definition or human life, you are free to create one. Your definition however has no usefulness outside of your own convictions.

Next, it's not human life that lacks a definition.

Since you are not here to talk about the legality, I'll save you from arguing the more complex points of how abortion does or does not effect society. I can see that you've given great thought into how abortion would personally affect you. I don't think you're irrational for feeling that way either.

The women and the doctors who are involved in abortion are not sadistic human beings, they're not mentally ill, and they're not stupid. for whatever reason they choose to abort, it's sincere. Do you disagree? And if it's sincere, you must at least be curious as to why? But let us now return to where we are. Those reasons are personal. Many women show remorse after an abortion, but most of that remorse is from the pregnancy, not the abortion.

Having said that, I'm fairly comfortable speaking for most pro-choicers when I say that we want fewer abortions. We just see a different ends to a means.

Sexual education
Birth control
After school programs
Tax credits for single mothers (instead of billionaires)
Raises in the minimum wage

Despite your feelings on the morality of abortion, I think you'll agree neo that a mother being able to CHOOSE to keep her child is much more

meaningful
profound
democratic

than a mother being FORCED to keep her child. If you enable people to make good choices, many will.

T
K
O

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The definition of human life depends on one's personal interpretation. There is no global definition that fits for all.

Are you talking about the human life of all humans? If so, how do you react to the US invasion of Iraq, and our killing some 80,000 innocent Iraqis? How about the killings in Darfur? How about all the starving humans on this planet? How about the over 13 million children without any parents? How about all those living in third world countries earning less than US$1 per day?

My personal subjective interpretation of human life is that governments and wars kill more humans than is necessary, and the spending on war should be diverted 100 percent to care for them by providing food and shelter. I, personally, cannot do much to make an impact on all the sufferings of humans on this planet. That, to me, is my reality.

I share your feelings on these other subjects, honestly. But none of them focus on the moral/ethical/legal/medical question which was posed at the beginning of this thread. And this is precisely why I am distressed over what seems to be the abortion on demand attitude of some in the pro choice camp.

0 Replies

Part of your problem (and I know you are plagued with innumerable problems) is that you have not convincingly substantiated that there is a:

Moral question
Ethical question
Legal question
Medical question

And further if you are successful in convincingly substantiating said questions that in no way means you have convincingly substantiated that they should / must be answered.

0 Replies

neo, Your problem stems from the simple fact that you think all abortions are "on demand." They are not. The woman (most) goes through much contemplation and guilt for having gotten pregnant in the first place, then must decide what's best for her own life and the baby. +

I personally wouldn't want to wish that on anyone. It's not a simple decision for any woman (most). If you continue to pursue this line of thinking that all abortions are "on demand," you need to learn more about nature and nurture.

0 Replies

It might be interesting to have a statistical breakdown in the anti-choice camp to see what % are men, and what % are women, and how the educational level follows the % change.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Part of your problem (and I know you are plagued with innumerable problems) is that you have not convincingly substantiated that there is a:

Moral question
Ethical question
Legal question
Medical question

And further if you are successful in convincingly substantiating said questions that in no way means you have convincingly substantiated that they should / must be answered.

No question? Rats! I thought for sure there was a question asked at the beginning of this thread.

Are you sure the question was not asked? Or is my question not a question?

Should it be answered? Why don't we ask the person who put the question mark at the beginning of the thread title? Or are we asking too much?

You certainly have a good grasp of the absurd, Chumly.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

neo, Your problem stems from the simple fact that you think all abortions are "on demand." They are not. The woman (most) goes through much contemplation and guilt for having gotten pregnant in the first place, then must decide what's best for her own life and the baby. +

I personally wouldn't want to wish that on anyone. It's not a simple decision for any woman (most). If you continue to pursue this line of thinking that all abortions are "on demand," you need to learn more about nature and nurture.

Didn't say that and its not important to the question Chumly thinks may have not been asked at the beginning of this thread.

Though your considerations are important to the woman making the choice, many women gladly will put their own lives at risk in order to bring a baby to term. Would you think their efforts to be in vain? Would you tell them not to worry, they could just adopt?

Shouldn't you just present all viewpoints in a dispassionate way?

0 Replies

"Dispassionate" is in the eye of the beholder. If the woman is smart enough, she'll seek the advise of several "professional" people in the field before making her decision - either way. Her primary physician, and a couple of others who have worked in family planning and other issues.

This only speaks to the "ideal" situation, and the reality is not all women have access to a personal physician or advocacy groups.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Part of your problem (and I know you are plagued with innumerable problems) is that you have not convincingly substantiated that there is a:

Moral question
Ethical question
Legal question
Medical question

And further if you are successful in convincingly substantiating said questions that in no way means you have convincingly substantiated that they should / must be answered.
No question? Rats! I thought for sure there was a question asked at the beginning of this thread.

Are you sure the question was not asked? Or is my question not a question?

Should it be answered? Why don't we ask the person who put the question mark at the beginning of the thread title? Or are we asking too much?

You certainly have a good grasp of the absurd, Chumly.

Unfortunately for both you and the original poster, the process of asking a question does not lend itself to an automatic condition whereby said question has convincing substantiation.

To abide by this question as you have without meeting my challenges places you at no better than the original poster in terms of following the trail of the absurd.

0 Replies

I'm sure your esteemed participation in it gives it authenticity beyond the originator's wildest intentions.

0 Replies

Should I should take your complement in the manner presented, and if not do I run the risk of being considered ungracious?

0 Replies

The coffee is always hot and the beer is always cold here in Edmonds, Chumly. We can create a smorgasbord of tasty words to go along.

0 Replies

When do rights begin? When do we enherit specifically the right to life?

the marker of when is the only thing thats definition is being challenged. The it-could-mean-anything-or-nothing question of "when does life begin?" still has yet to be argued s having any real value.

When life begins and when something enherits a personhood are not one and the same.

T
K
O

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The coffee is always hot and the beer is always cold here in Edmonds, Chumly. We can create a smorgasbord of tasty words to go along.

T'would be fun if we could do a Micro Northwest A2K gathering (or perhaps even a Vancouver BC based version?).

I recently chatted with Mame over the phone and plan to meet her for a goodly (not godly) walk sometime soon and Doc (wherever he may be) is nearby too as is Reyn nearby. I used to really like Doc's posts (as I gather you did also).

I am off for a walk 'round the lake with my better half, alas not with our dog as she's nearing death (in some real sense aren't we all?).

0 Replies

The Doc still hasn't opened my March 12 pm.

0 Replies

Who the hell is Doc?

0 Replies

so... with the above mention of the "rights" and all... what about a gay fetus? should we develop a technology that can detect the sexuality of a fetus... would a gay fetus have those same rights, or should we be allowed to abort them? i mean as a society, we already look at homosexuals as a lesser sub-class...

0 Replies

USAF, I'm sure with a little effort, you can expand that to other "minorities" who threaten "our way of life." It all begins and ends with ignorance for people who must feel "superior" to any other group. They wish to control everything from birth, excuse me - from conception, to death.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know